9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Fulfillment of conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether the assessee-company was entitled to the exemption provided under Section 84(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1965-66. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the exemption. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially rejected the assessee's claim, arguing that the company had started manufacturing operations in the factory at Nangloi in the accounting year ending June 30, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62. The ITO reasoned that under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the benefit of Section 15C was not available if any assets used in an existing business were transferred to a new industrial undertaking. The ITO observed that substantial parts of the machinery were transferred from the old factory to the new factory, thus disqualifying the assessee from relief under Section 15C and Section 84 of the 1961 Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) confirmed the ITO's order, concluding that the new undertaking was merely a reconstruction of an existing business. The AAC noted that the new factory was producing different articles but still considered it an expansion of the existing business. The Tribunal, however, found that the value of the assets transferred from the old factory to the new one was less than 20% of the total value of the assets used in the new business, thus fulfilling the condition laid down in Section 84(2)(ii) and the Explanation thereto. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 84. 2. Fulfillment of Conditions Laid Down in Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The second issue was whether the assessee-company satisfied all the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 84, particularly clauses (i) and (ii). Condition (i): Splitting Up or Reconstruction of Business: The court examined whether the new undertaking at Nangloi was formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. The court clarified that "splitting up" implies breaking up the integrity of an existing business into independent sections. In this case, there was no finding that the unity and integrity of the business at Qutab Road factory were compromised. The new factory concentrated on manufacturing railway wagons and refuellers, distinct from the old factory's activities. Condition (ii): Transfer of Assets: The court noted that the ITO and AAC had emphasized the transfer of assets from the old factory to the new one. However, the Tribunal found that the value of the transferred assets was less than 20% of the total value of the new business's assets, thus fulfilling the condition under Section 84(2)(ii) and the Explanation. Reconstruction of Business: The court referred to various legal precedents to interpret the term "reconstruction." It emphasized that reconstruction involves continuity and preservation of the old undertaking, not merely a transfer of some assets. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, which highlighted that setting up a new industrial undertaking, even if it expands the existing business, does not necessarily constitute reconstruction if the new unit is independent and viable. The court concluded that the new factory at Nangloi was an independent and viable unit, not merely a reconstruction of the existing business. The transfer of a small part of the assets from the old factory did not constitute reconstruction. The new factory was set up with new capital, new machinery, and new personnel, and it produced distinct commodities. Conclusion: The court held that the assessee-company satisfied all the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was entitled to the exemption under Section 84(1) for the assessment years in question. The court answered the reference in favor of the assessee and awarded costs to the assessee.
|
